DUB Speak

Things we could have retained from FYUP

Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr

Recent case studies and facts demonstrate the void that exists between the course curriculum of colleges and professional job requirements. There is an increasing number of students who, even with the highest marks in their respective courses, are not recruited during the placement drives of Delhi University. Some employers address this as the lack of “work-readiness” in an employee. But whatever we may term it, the fact is that it was time for the University to upgrade their courses and/or initiate a newly drafted syllabus which could effectively address this issue.

In the pre-FYUP debacle Mr. Dinesh Singh, the current Vice Chancellor of Delhi University, stated, “The difficulty was, previously, when we tried to place students, the kind of training our students had in the previous system was not exactly suited to what the world wanted. A bank or any financial institution, for instance, would look for a student, who comes with good analytical skills, a little bit of spreadsheet usage and this has to be backed with some knowledge in commerce- practical and non-practical aspects- that seemed to be a bit of a disconnect. So in the new program, you get an edge to the basic knowledge; it is a gain.”

In an era where employers are seeking job candidates who possess soft skills and employees who can not only think of a new idea, but can also present it to others, FYUP was the perfect recipe to bridge the gap between semester education and professional training. Agreed, that the implementation of the program was a bit erratic, but the program in its essence was sufficient and necessary. Even with the rollback already under way, there were several students who wanted the University to modify some courses instead of doing away with the course permanently. Here’s a list of things that we could have retained from FYUP:

1. The privilege of completing a Minor-Major Degree

The people who stood for the FYUP argued that the idea of FYUP was to provide an enabling framework for the welfare of the students. For years, a plethora of students have faced the dilemma of choosing between a particular course or the “better” college. For people like these students who took a different course than their preferred choice, FYUP provided a platform to still do a minor in the course they wanted. And even otherwise, for people who had an inclination towards more than one course, the opportunity to do a minor in either of them was simply good fortune.

A Sanskrit Honours student had the opportunity to do a minor in computer science or an Economics student could pursue Journalism. The students could then do their Masters in the minor courses increasing their job prospects and pool of possible career options. With the erstwhile FYUP batch still not clear about their syllabus, no one knows for sure if they can still pursue further studies in the allied subjects they are being taught.

2. Field Research

The entire idea behind the FYUP was not only to effectively articulate business proposals but also complete a year of research in their respective fields. With many students in the previous systems graduating with little or no technical knowledge of their subjects, the idea of doing a field research seemed very promising.

Currently, even the research projects or the dissertation seems improbable because the faculty is trying hard to complete the required number of Discipline courses that the students did not complete in their first year of the FYUP program. Many students are also worried about their future job prospects. With people in second year of study doing courses their juniors are doing, students are concerned that doing less Discipline courses than their seniors and juniors will harm their overall understanding of the subject, and hence future employability.

3. The provision of completing 16 years of educational qualification

While some people welcomed heartily the idea of doing a four year program, people against the FYUP claimed that the program was a step towards “Americanizing the Indian education”. Mr. Dinesh Singh stated earlier, “I was surprised to learn when we embarked on this that there were many institutions in India that also have something that runs for four years. The Allahabad University has a four year program; even Bangalore University has something similar. So this isn’t something that didn’t exist in India, but was certainly there in pockets.”

For students keen on pursuing Masters from foreign universities who require a minimum of 16 years of education, the lack of this provision now, formed the prime reason of resentment during the rollback of FYUP.

4. Upgrading existing institutions instead of setting up new ones

With several new universities being set up to address the lack of liberal arts education in India and also to focus on the lack of employability in the students, introducing FYUP was a step towards upgrading the existing institutions to bring students at par with their counterparts, nationally and globally. It was also believed that the FYUP provided the University with a global reputation and recognition.


Several of rounds of debate during the FYUP rollback took place with no clear majority. Some students who were initially against FYUP hoped that the administration would modify the program a bit instead of doing away with it permanently. With almost a year down the drain and a very apprehensive year ahead, there are far too many questions on every student’s mind. One can only wonder how this would reflect on their job applications or applications for their masters’ program.

Surbhi Arora
[email protected]

A Wall Street wannabe, I'm currently in my final year of Economics Honours. I enjoy reading American and Indian poetry, contemporary political fiction and autobiographies. I can be reached at [email protected]. Or you can send me a tweet @soysurbhi

Comments are closed.